Should there be changes for the working poor?

[madmax]

So says the Union Rep.

And yes, I get the gist of your reply to Mr.C.

Hypocrisy to the fullest, and I understand the point you were making.....

[Mr.Canada]

So says the Union Rep.

Youve dodged this enough times. We all know hard work and a raise are mutually exclusive in a union shop. One gets the raise no matter how lazy he or she is.

Want to comment Mr C ? I bet not, just like the last 4 times.

There is a huge difference between public and private sector Unions. The Union I am affiliated with, The Teamsters, is much different then CUPE for example.

Not all unions are created equal or have equal aims and goals.

[Bryan]

Instead of raising the minimum wage, if we really cared about the poor, what we should be doing it eliminating them. Minimum wages kill competition for labour, and keeps everyone's wages artificially low.

Personally, I much prefer to get paid piecework, rather than a set wage. that way I'm the one in control of how much I make.

[Scotty]

The problem is that you refuse to accept the reality that many people end up on social assistance not by their own choosing. In fact, the vast majority of people would rather NOT be on social assistance.

Cybercoma, I don't doubt this is correct, and that most anyone on welfare would rather be in a nice, well-paying job, or perhaps simply rich without one. But the fact remains that of those who are on social assistance long term it is rarely simply a matter of misfortune. The decisions and actions we make in life follow us, and either restrict or enhance our opportunities later in life. Then, too, there's the matter of drive and ambition. Not everyone has either. Some people would work, but don't see the chance, giving up too easily. Some want the good job, but aren't willing to take the crummy jobs you need to transition through first. Then, too, some people are simply not emotionally accepting of the rigid nine to five work life needed in most organizations - all the rules and regulations and behavior requirements, etc.

I agree that portraying them as all simply lazy or the product of their own bad decisions is wrong. But it's also wrong to suggest they're all they're all there due to no fault of their own.

[Scotty]

So says the Union Rep.

Youve dodged this enough times. We all know hard work and a raise are mutually exclusive in a union shop. One gets the raise no matter how lazy he or she is.

I happen to be a shop steward myself. It's true that increments happen regardless of whether you're working hard or not. However, the cliche of the union worker not working hard is just that, a cliche. Discipline exists within all organizations, regardless of union activity. If disciplinary measures aren't being taken against a 'lazy' worker that's management's fault.

I can tell you that there is very little in our collective agreement about the specifics discipline. Still, discipline is avoided by many managers simply because Human Resources and Staff Relations have surrounded even the simplest of disciplinary measures with a grandiose policy mechanism which consumes untold time and resources.

[Jack Weber]

I happen to be a shop steward myself. It's true that increments happen regardless of whether you're working hard or not. However, the cliche of the union worker not working hard is just that, a cliche. Discipline exists within all organizations, regardless of union activity. If disciplinary measures aren't being taken against a 'lazy' worker that's management's fault.

I can tell you that there is very little in our collective agreement about the specifics discipline. Still, discipline is avoided by many managers simply because Human Resources and Staff Relations have surrounded even the simplest of disciplinary measures with a grandiose policy mechanism which consumes untold time and resources.

This USWA member agrees completely!!!

[ToadBrother]

Instead of raising the minimum wage, if we really cared about the poor, what we should be doing it eliminating them. Minimum wages kill competition for labour, and keeps everyone's wages artificially low.

Personally, I much prefer to get paid piecework, rather than a set wage. that way I'm the one in control of how much I make.

That might make sense, if it didn't take into account 250 years of labour relations. No minimum wage means an incredibly large underclass, not an end to that underclass.

[Bryan]

That might make sense, if it didn't take into account 250 years of labour relations. No minimum wage means an incredibly large underclass, not an end to that underclass.

Lots of things were different 250 years ago.

[Jack Weber]

Lots of things were different 250 years ago.

That's your sorry free market excuse???

[Bryan]

That's your sorry free market excuse???

What's to excuse? People's lives are getting better despite government interference, not because of it.

[Smallc]

What's to excuse? People's lives are getting better despite government interference, not because of it.

Or perhaps people's lives get better because they've learned to form better governments amongst themselves. People to the right always make the mistake of separating the people in the government, when in reality, in a democratic system, that isn't possible.

[Cyberguy]

In reading the posts, it seems that either people are venturing way off topic, or the topic itself is too broad! Most see an increase in the minimum wage as the quintessential answer (or not) for the working poor. To avoid bending the mathematical financial reality, we have to assume that the 40 hour week enshrined in law during the 1950's came about in recognition that your average person could not be expected to do more than that many hours during the span of their working lives. I am talking about the "average" person because the working poor is a group. Only averages should apply, not the acute examples listed in some posts (which are cute). Running faster on the hamster wheel is hardly an option; that didn't work during the industrial revolution either. Why is there a minimum wage? I assume it is because every citizen who works a 40 hour week should have the ability to put a roof over his or her head. We also know that since '76, if minimum wages had kept up with inflation, they'd be @ around $17/hour by now. (I 4get what the rate was in'76 exactly). There is some merit to this statistic, because I'm sure that poor people are using @ least 2/3 of their incomes to pay rent, these days. Living like sardines in a can is not an option for many families, nor is it one from a health department standpoint. I know it can be done because, in the welfare house next to mine, they used to sleep in shifts. People that advocate living like sardines or running around from part-time job to part- time job & throwing in your own scam here & there are only bolstering the case for a minimum wage or "job entitlement" because the minimums are there to prevent exploitation & outright abuse of the most disadvantaged in society. No way is there any need for that! They show up with a desire to work; what more do you want? Sending someone down the road because they're due to recieve a salary increment is bad enough! To say that our country depends on slavery to survive, is absurd. The people who say this the loudest are no doubt the multi-million dollar CEO's & their untouchable cronies on the boards of directors who drain off hundreds of millions annually (in salaries alone) from the profits from production (or services). Profits generated by the labour of the legions in their employ.

If slavery is so necessary, then change the system to one that benefits mankind! Emancipation should be the goal. If the job isn't worth minimum wage than it's not worth doing & that's it!

For all the poor-bashers out there, this is supposed to be a discussion about the plight of the WORKING poor. I think they should have the right to shelter, some food, & maybe even a car if public transport doesn't exist. All this takes a wage. An actual wage-not a theoretical one. Notwithstanding if they're Catholic & have sex, or if they have mouths to feed. If raising the minimum wage to a bare minimum to afford basic shelter is due, then so be it. Obviously though, without a national childcare program, poor families (women) are screwed. National daycare would obviously boost worker productivity by adding more (female) minions to the system. Then everyone would be "productive" from the standpoint of creating shareholder wealth & contributing to the official GDP. There are statistics on rent in every province - in a just society, wages should match. Wage push inflation (if there is any... it was negligible in Australia) is much more desirable than the other causes. You could tighten up the credit market @ the same time for example, although none of this would be necessary, as the banks are the big causers & reapers of any inflation rippling through the economy.

I say $17/hour to be implemented in stages & national daycare for the working class. Problem solved. No need for a fight. Minimum wage should be indexed, too. Even if the inflation rate is a bogus lie. No, scratch that, just tie it to rent. By the way, last time I looked, Quebec's national daycare plan was $5/kid/day.

[Jack Weber]

What's to excuse? People's lives are getting better despite government interference, not because of it.

Neoliberal economics is'nt just about government "interference" in the economy...

It's about getting rid of ALL "interference" in the market...

A free and unencumbered market...

Do you really think that an unfettered global free market is the solution???

Edited February 20, 2011 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

I am happy guy. I don`t have a formal education ,but I own a thriving business with first class people working for me ,all long term and on salary. I do not apologize for my great fortune. It has been all hard honest work ,NOT LUCK.

Just raising minimum wage is not the answer for the working poor.

No. With all due respect, you are the recipient of hard honest work and luck.

Some folks need structure in their work that only Burger King can give them. Nothing wrong with that . There is job security with very little self starting will to have job security. God bless these places for employing these kind of folks.

"God bless" them?

you think they do what they out of altruism?

Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

How do you know these people can't make ends meet because of their own mistakes? Many of them don't. The cyclical nature of the economy means many people will find themselves without a job through no fault of their own. They're ready, willing and able to work but can't find a job. Moreover, rapid changes in modern technology may make a person's education that they received 10 years ago completely obsolete. Some people who have been working in the same job for 30 years have their jobs eliminated by modern technology and need to upgrade their skills, but perhaps they are too old to devote the time to this and even if they do maybe they're too close to retirement for an employer to consider seriously.

The problem is that you refuse to accept the reality that many people end up on social assistance not by their own choosing. In fact, the vast majority of people would rather NOT be on social assistance. There are numerous barriers to escaping social assistance once you get on it. Every major political party in this country has accepted the social safety net as necessary. In fact, it was the conservative Bismarck government in Germany during the 1800s that began an early form of employment insurance to promote social stability, which makes things better for business and the economy as a whole. Nonetheless, before the 1800s England had begun to establish poor laws in the 1600s. If the primary role of government is security, then social security ought to be one of their primary concerns.

You make the mistake of thinking that others share your sense of compassion, and your ability to use your imagination to place yourself in others' shoes.

But some people prefer a more austere, cruel-minded, and (at bottom) self-aggrandizing approach to understanding the problems around us.

[bloodyminded]

So someone said 4% of workers are at minimum wage? Of that, how many are their own primary breadwinner? How many would consider their actual wage to be the lesser part of their income (tips and gratruities; room and board etc.)?

Yes, but the stat, while perhaps technically true, is nevertheless generated from an (intentionally) deceitful premise.

The number of folks working for the literal minimum wage is not high.

But the number of folks working close to the minimum wage--close enough that it makes very little practical difference in their lives--is not very low. There's lots of them.

When I worked the night crew at Walmart, no one made minimum wage. That is, everyone made between a dollar and two dollars more than minimum wage.

So, they don't fit into the "minimum wage" stat.

But they're in precisely the same boat. (And that's North America's biggest employer...in and of itself, this one company would distinctly alter the statistics, if we're to look at wage rates in an honest and meaningful way.)

And these aren't high school kids making spending money. The average age was about forty. And some of them were primary breadwinners, yes.

Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Instead of raising the minimum wage, if we really cared about the poor, what we should be doing it eliminating them. Minimum wages kill competition for labour, and keeps everyone's wages artificially low.

No. what's to stop current minimum wage businesses from lowering their wages?

That's the practical step, and is exactly what they'd do. Why wouldn't they?

There'd be no competition for wages between these sorts of jobs...because there isn't now. They all pay the same, or very close to the same.

So it would be under your scenario...except the pay would be lower across the board.

[Molly]

If the job isn't worth minimum wage than it's not worth doing & that's it!

Hold on. Productivity is what determines the value of a job. Workers are not equal or interchangeable, and however you cut it fiscal sanity is part of the employment/wage decision process.

It's all very well to propose paying people according to their needs (and wants and wishes) to perform a task, but the more they cost, the easier it is to invent a machine to cost-effectively replace them. The employer's goal isn't 'to employ people'. The employer's goal is to cost-effectively accomplish a task.

Joe Palooka who can make 4 widgets/hour on his best day may or may not be worth a minimum wage that allows him to move out of his parents' basement, so yes indeedy, HIS work isn't worth doing or paying someone to do. Now Elsie Palooka on the other hand, has greater manual dexterity, a lick of sense and some work ethic, and averages 8 widgets an hour... and thus is worth 2X any wage that Joe is worth (with a little premium thrown in, because the lack of headache is worth something)...

Is Joe unemployable at any price just because he can't achieve that threshold of productivity? Should Elsie's job be eliminated because Joe can't achieve a minimum threshold of productivity? Just how would a non productivity-based wage system work?

[Molly]

No. what's to stop current minimum wage businesses from lowering their wages?

For some of them, absolutely nothing. (For others, the constant cost of training new staff, the lack of productivity of the ones who stay, etc. etc. etc...)

Is that really all that bad a thing?

[bloodyminded]

Hold on. Productivity is what determines the value of a job. Workers are not equal or interchangeable, and however you cut it fiscal sanity is part of the employment/wage decision process.

This remains largely theoretical, and does not quite translate into the real world.

Those of us who spent decades in low-wage jobs and industries--and then managed to escape, and so have the benefit of hindsight--see very, very little actual relation to productivity and "fiscal sanity" in the way it worked.

Your analogy about numbers of "widgets" built--which is quite divorced from the contemporary workplace--rather suggests the lack of any objective and verifiable data on matters of productivity.

[bloodyminded]

For some of them, absolutely nothing. (For others, the constant cost of training new staff, the lack of productivity of the ones who stay, etc. etc. etc...)

Is that really all that bad a thing?

Well, not for the people who aren't enduring such a life...no, when it's hypotheticals about the inferior working poor, it all sounds pretty awesome.

[Scotty]

I say $17/hour to be implemented in stages & national daycare for the working class. Problem solved. No need for a fight. Minimum wage should be indexed, too. Even if the inflation rate is a bogus lie. No, scratch that, just tie it to rent. By the way, last time I looked, Quebec's national daycare plan was $5/kid/day.

For every raise in the minimum wage you'll have employers trying to figure out how to do with less staff. Or how to defray their costs by outsourcing so they don't have to pay benefits. You'll also have commensurate increases in the price of goods and services throughout the economy, for a raise in minimum wage rates forces all other salaries up as well. Ultimately, this leads to fewer jobs.

AS for national daycare, that raises the problem of people who have worked hard and made economic and career sacrifices in order to ensure one partner is home with the kids forced to help subsidize the child care of parents who do not choose to make similar sacrifices. And btw, Quebec's daycare has tons of problems.

[Scotty]

Instead of raising the minimum wage, if we really cared about the poor, what we should be doing it eliminating them. Minimum wages kill competition for labour, and keeps everyone's wages artificially low.

So does mass immigration of non-skilled labour. We bring in tens of thousands of unskilled laborers every year, and these people are eager for work and more than willing to settle for lower wages and benefits than Canadians. Employers are starting to take advantage of the government's guest worker program, as well. They're bringing in workers who will be obedient wage slaves for minimal wages to do jobs in the hotel and service industries - the ultimate outsourcing of jobs. All of this means a lot more competition for the low skill/low wage jobs the poor need.

[Molly]

Well, not for the people who aren't enduring such a life...no, when it's hypotheticals about the inferior working poor, it all sounds pretty awesome.

This is offensive. My bona fides are at least as valid as your own, and I'll thank you to take your nose out of the air and address the ideas instead of inventing a position for me so that you may disapprove of it.

[Molly]

This remains largely theoretical, and does not quite translate into the real world.

Those of us who spent decades in low-wage jobs and industries--and then managed to escape, and so have the benefit of hindsight--see very, very little actual relation to productivity and "fiscal sanity" in the way it worked.

Your analogy about numbers of "widgets" built--which is quite divorced from the contemporary workplace--rather suggests the lack of any objective and verifiable data on matters of productivity.

How so? If productivity does not determine the value of work performed, then what does?

How is productivity divorced from the contemporary workplace, and how would you more objectively/verifiably express productivity than by measuring the product?

Edited February 20, 2011 by Molly